The Roles of Social Capital in Agricultural Development: The Means of Attaining and Securing Food Security1

Cungki Kusdarjito2 Janabadra University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia ckusdarjito@windowslive.com

Abstract The Classical economists indentified land, labor and physical capital as the three basic factors shaping economics growth. Further the 1960s neo-classical economists, such as Thodore Schultz and Gary Becker introduced human capital, arguing that educated, trained and healthy workers determined how productivelly factors could be utilized. Recently, the term of social capital is frequently used in development theory, since it is argued that trust and social networks will affect productions, income and access to the production factors and social wellbeing through inclusion and exclusion of people or group in society . It is acknowledges that social capital has cost as well benefits, that social ties can be liability as well as an asset. This paper evaluates the role and forms of social capital (bonding or bridging, horisontal and vertical) in agricultural development. It is argued that domination of one form social capital in society will deteriorate the effectiveness of social capital. Keywords: social capital, agricultural development, bonding, bridging

1 2

Paper presented at International Seminar NAR-C2RF, June 27 28th 2011 Faculty of Agriculture, Janabadra University Yogyakarta

Social Capital: Introduction In the last ten years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the social and institutional dimensions of economic development (Woolcock, 2002). Economic performance of individuals, organizations, and communities is increasingly shown to be rooted not only in economic potential and managerial skills, but also in the existing sets of formal and informal institutions. In this situation, social networks provide a mechanism of maintaining the functioning of society on a certain level of effectiveness. (Valentinos, 2003). This finding demonstrates that the market solutions to many socio-economic problems will be either unavailable or unsatisfactory for a certain period, especially before 2000s. Moreover, as suggested by Stiglitz (2000), even though a market economy may be relatively effective as a whole, specific markets may be imperfect, which causes some socially useful functions to remain undelivered. Moreover, the growing complexity of inter-agent relations causes the increasing amount of economic responsibility being transferred from authority-based to social capital-based forms of economic organization. To deal with aforementioned complexity, social capital becomes one of the most written-about concepts in discussion about development along with the conventional development capitals, such as financial, human, and physical capitals. Social capital is now regarded as a key element in analyzing the development potentials of individuals, organizations, communities, and even nation states (Brown in Alonge, 2002). This implies that development practices recently is shifted from markets and hierarchies, based mainly on economic capital, to networks and heterarchy with their primary accent on social capital. In general, social capital can be defined as norms and networks in society (Woolcox, 2001), which encourage cooperation based on trust, honesty and respect each other (Fukuyama, 1999). Further, Woolcox (2001) said that trust could be generated only after many recurrent interactions among the member of society. Glaeser (2001) said that social capital is a collection of social resources in society which can improve the welfare of the society member. Valentinos (2003) also mentioned that social capital was defined as the shared knowledge, trust, and culture, embodied in the structural forms of networks and other stable inter-agent relationships. The role of social capital is important in society. Community rich in social capital tends to sustain longer and has stronger civil society (Colleta and Cullen, 2000). On the other hand, community lacked in social capital may bring on political-system dysfunction. Civil society is weak, and it may cause a paralysis for the implementation of public policy due to nihilistic attitude which denial of all established authority and institutions (Kusdarjito, 2008). The general rationale behind the existence of the social capital-based organisation is that there are certain useful social functions that cannot be effectively delivered both by hierarchies and markets but rather require different resource allocation mechanisms provided by social capital. Naturally, the creation of such organizations critically depends on the availability of social capital, which can in this way improve the welfare of respective communities (Valentinos, 2003). Yet, social capital has been shown to be more difficult to build than economic capital or other form of capitals, and to have greater beneficial effects for community as a whole. Social capital is not just the sum of institutions which underpin a society it is the glue that holds them together. Social capital is is always highly idiosyncratic. It is not freely transferable to other coordinates of space and time. In other words, all instances of social capital are strongly connected to the local conditions (including both the objective situation and attitudes of people) which gave rise to them. The systems social capital produces atmospheric effects which promote (or impede) the intensity of business activity in the community, while similar effects are not characteristic for physical of financial capital (Valentinos, 2003). 2

Sandefur and Laumann (1998) identified three important benefits of social capital: information, influence and control, and social solidarity. Information sharing is a significant benefit of social capital. Akdere and Robert (2008) mentioned some benefits of social capital are: (a) risk management and social insurance (b) better management of common and shared resources, through group action; (c) reduced costs of conducting business and increasing the capacity to exploit economies of scale; (d) increased ability to innovate and to sustain activities beyond the life of projects; (e) improved access to information and services; and (f) greater influence over policies and legislation. Social capital is not always used for positive purposes since social relationships, networks and trust can act as a foundation for negative actions and exclusion or even oppression of particular social groups (think of religious extremists, football hooligan groups). Similarly, a society may be well-organised, with strong institutions and embedded control mechanisms, but be based on fear and power (think of feudal, hierarchical, racist societies), this usually occurs in bonding social capital with large power distant (Kusdarjito, 2008). Moreover, as Portes noted in Akdere and Robert (2008), there may be negative consequences of social capital, including restricted access to opportunities, restrictions on individual freedoms, excessive claims on group members, and adverse norms. Akdere and Robert (2008) identified four negative consequences of social capital: (a) the exclusion of outsiders, (b) excess claims on group members, (c) restriction on individual freedoms, and (d) downward leveling of norms. Social capital is not costless to produce and it represents an accumulated stock from which a stream of benefits flow. The term capital in Social Capital implies that the inter-agent relations should be analysed from the perspective of costs and benefits. Inter-agent relations may generate streams of benefits for their participants, which are valuable and important for their utility maximisation. At the same time, these benefits are neither free nor is their mechanism of action obvious. The supply of these benefits requires costs, not only in the benefits per se, but also in the learning of how these benefits may be created (Valentinos, 2003). As the very term social capital implies, the integrative nature of the new approach lies in uniting the economic (capital) and social aspects of inter-agent interaction. Forms of Social Capital Social capital has two forms, those are horizontal and vertical. Horizontal social-capital refers to the bonding and bridging relationships, which represents the degree of cohesion among the members of society. Bonding is associated with relation in the family, close friend or neighbour whilst bridging is concerned with people with a demographic similarity. Bonding is exclusive and inward looking (Woolcox, 2001) and when bonding relations become too tight, it results in in-group fanaticism or even worse, sectarianism (Anonym, 2001). Yet, bonding is suitable to generate in-group solidarity. On the other hand, bridging is more inclusive, outward looking and involving people from the outside group. Woolcox (2002) said that bridging is essentially a horizontal metaphor, however, implying connections between people who share broadly similar demographic characteristics, irrespective of how well they know one another. Another form of social capital is vertical social-capital. Vertical social-capital is associated with hierarchy and distribution of power in society. Consequently, social capital may benefit to some at the cost of others or it may not have impact to some people (Grrotaert and van Bastelaer, 2001). Vertical social-capital is also known as linkage (Woolcox, 2001). The capacity to leverage resources, ideas, and information from formal institutions beyond the community is a key function of linking social capital (Woolcox, 2002). Weak, hostile or indifferent government have different effect on community life than government that respect civil liberties, uphold the rule of law and resist corruption. The absence or weakness of formal institution is often compensated for by the creation of informal organizations. 3

Figure 1 shows the vertical (linkage) and horizontal (bonding and bridging) of the form of social capital.
State

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Bonding

Strong Social Cohesion Low Conflict Inclusive Equality Inefficient Bureaucracy Open Society
Bridging

Horisontal 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Weak Social Cohesion High Conflict Exclusive Authoritarian Efficient Bureaucracy Closed Society

\ Figure 1 Social Capital (Colleta and Cullen, 2000) Based on the illustration shown in Figure 1 (Colleta and Culen, 2000) societies lack of social capital (vertically and horizontally), small radius of trust and tight bonding (quadrant 3) are corrupt, exclusive, introvert, and imbalance access to information and innovation. On the other hand, when bridging and linkage are high (quadrant 1), there are less conflicts, open minded society and less corruptions. Though, Colleta and Collen (2000) did not explain the meaning of social capital in the second and fourth quadrants. Meanwhile, Kusdarjito (2008) said that quadrant 4 (weak, hostile, or indifferent government) is the source of anarchism in society which is characterized by abundance of informal organization whilst quadrant 2 may generate authoritarian government. Social capital has a radius of trust (forming a circle of trust), which represents the extent of the norms in society that can be implemented effectively (Fukuyama, 1999). Traditional society usually has a small radius of trust, predominantly by bonding relation. It is difficult for the members of traditional society to move to the others groups. As a result, transfer of innovations and information is difficult to occur in the traditional society. People from the group with small radius of trust tend to behave negatively when they are not in their group. This deviance behaviour occurs because there is no sanction from their group when they are not in their group or oppositely, they think that they act on behalf of their group, no matter that their behaviour has negative impacts to others. In such society, conflict can materialize easily. In modern society, radius of trust is greater than that of in traditional society, forming many circles which overlap each other. Here, people can move easily from one group to others, as well as information and innovation. Social capital in modern society is functioning as bridges among many groups or members of society. Valentino (2003) classified social capital according to the general structural levels of inter-agent relations: individual, organisational, and community-level. It is intuitively clear that the characteristics of social capital will vary with structural levels, in particular in the important respect of the relationship between costs and benefits of building it. It is important that although the cooperative and competitive aspects of social interaction are profoundly interrelated, social capital may promote one of them at the expense of the other. In other words, more competition is associated with individual social capital, while more cooperation is

Vertikal (Linkage)

characteristic for community-level, whereas organisational social capital occupies an intermediate position (Valentinos, 2003; Kusdarjito, 2008). The benefits of social capital on individual level take the form of the privileged access to prestigious connections or opportunities of better enhancement of individual human capital or material status, which is only possible at the expense of exclusion of everybody else. On the organisational level social capital may generate network externalities, which imply both cooperation (positive) and exclusion (negative), in that the organisation members should cooperate to enjoy the externality providing for their privileged status in relation to nonmembers which are, respectively, excluded (Valentinos, 2003). The community-level social capital, conceptually introduced primarily by Putnam (1993), seems to dominate the theoretical thinking of most contemporary studies of the concept. The purely cooperative essence with no implications of non-member is obvious in the following definitions of social capital: an instantiated informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals (Fukuyama, 2000); features of social organisation, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated action (Putnam 1993). On the community level the competitive relations can be said to be non-existent since nobody is intended to be excluded from the enjoyment of potential benefits of cooperation. The general problem in building the community-level of social capital is recognized as free-riding, the major problem of collective action (Valentinos, 2003). Table 1 below shows the structural levels of Social Capital Table 1: The structural levels of social capital Level Benefits Individual Privileged access to prestigious connections Organisational Network externalities Community Valentinos, 2003 In Halperns view cited in Valentionos (2003), also in Akdere and Robert, 2008, social capital should be analized in three levels: (a) micro, including love, care, reciprocity, link to acquaintance and friends; (b) meso, including networks between groups, neighbourhood and community; and (c) macro, relating to norms, honors, diplomacy, and the role of the state. By definition, it can be inferred that micro, meso and macro social capitals are resemblance of bonding, bridging and linkage social capitals, respectivelly. Using a micro-level conceptualization, Rose cited in Alonge (2002) defines social capital as consisting of informal social networks and formal organizations used by individuals and households to produce goods and services for their own consumption, exchange or sale. At the meso-level, community-wide institutions facilitate transactions among non-kin by regulating the conduct of the social, cultural, religious and economic life of rural households Cooperative spill-over effects Costs Exclusion of everybody else Exclusion of non-members; organisational lock-in; freeriding Free-riding

Figure 2 Three Level of Social Capital (Akdere and Roberts, 2008) This model takes into account the fact that social capital is formed wherever human relations exist. At the micro level, social capital may be created between and among individuals. At the meso level, social capital accumulation can be achieved among members of a group. For example, relationships and associations, created as a result of group membership and affiliation, can provide the basis and opportunities for social capital. Because social capital requires the cooperation of others in the group for it to be useful, it is not a form of private property like physical or human capital. Furthermore, although team members jointly pursue the common goal of team success, they may have differing opinions, interests, divisional objectives, and departmental prerogatives. This may undermine consensus and exacerbate conflicts of interest, thus making teamwork difficult and leading to lower team performance. Achieving higher levels of social capital can prevent such hazardous paths for teams. At the macro level, social capital exists at a larger societal setting. social capital at the macro levelinteractions and relationships among different organizations. Serageldin and Grootaert cited in Valentinos (2003) identify three views of social capital: 1) informal and local horizontal associations; 2) plus hierarchical associations; 3) plus formalized national structures such as government and the rule of law (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 Horizontal and Vertical Social Capital in 3D Representation Dasgupta (2005) in Akdere and Robert (2008) suggested that social capital is best seen as interpersonal networks, nothing more; and that we should address the quality of that capital by studying what networks are engaged in. Grootaert and Bastelaer in Valentinos (2003) draw a methodological distinction between two forms of social capital structural (established roles, 6

social networks and other social structures) and cognitive (shared norms, values, trust, attitudes, and beliefs). However, according to Valentinos (2003), it seems more appropriate to differentiate between the contents and form, rather than between two kinds of form. it is more appropriate that roles, social networks and other structures represent the structural form of social capital, whereas norms, values, trust, attitudes, and beliefs constitute its contents. Social capital can therefore be defined as norms, values, and trust embodied in the specific structural forms (e.g. networks, associations, groups etc.) (Valentinos, 2003). Though, cognitive aspect of social capital are important when we discuss knowledge transfer in society. Social Capital: Economics Perspectives Theoretically, the market can be an inappropriate solution for a resource allocation problem because of two reasons: either the effective demand is missing, because of inability to bear the financial costs of purchase, or there can be no supplier for a particular product or service, most likely due to its significant idiosyncrasy. The hierarchical structure, whether public or private, may not accept the task because of either lack of motivation, or inability to bear the costs, or technical inability to produce the required output. To generalize, the reasons behind the inadequacy of centralized and decentralized price-based resource allocation mechanisms are too high transaction (in developed countries) and/or production costs (in eveloping countries). In the 1950s and 60s, modernization theory regarded traditional social relationship and ways of life as an impediment to development. The classical economists identified land, labor and physical capital as three basic factors shaping economic growth and then in 1960s Theodore Schlutz and Gary Beker introduced the notion of human capital, arguing that societys endowment of educated, trained and healthy workers determined how productively factors could be utilzed. Recently, social capital as an independent factor of production has entered debat about its impacts on economic performance (Woolcock, 2002). The burden of opinion among economists seems to be that investments in social capital are not capable of direct measurement. As Robert Sollow has pointed out, quantified measures of social capital do not estimate the value of actors effort to build social network and ties. Most measurement of social apital is of proxy variable (Prakash, 2002). The fundamental economic significance of social capital is explained by its ability to allocate resources for the useful social tasks in cases where the traditional authority-based and pricebased resource allocation mechanisms do not work. The social capital-based resource allocation mechanism is different from these traditional mechanisms in that it is aimed to render new services rather than to minimize the governance costs of on-going transactions. The purpose of social capital is to fully mobilize the potential of private collective action by rendering previously unavailable services to members, which means to initiate principally new transactions; in contrast, markets and hierarchies are used to ensure the efficient governance of on-going transactions. Therefore, the resource allocation mechanisms of markets and hierarchies are directed at ensuring that the current structure of production corresponds to a point on the production possibility frontier rather within it by minimizing governance costs, while the social capital-based resource allocation is aimed at expanding the frontier itself. In this sense it can be said that social capital-based resource allocation is dynamic in that it creates new uses for resources (see Figure 4), while the static nature of both centralized and decentralized allocation lies in minimizing transaction costs of maintaining the existing structure of resource use (Valentinos, 2003).

Figure 4 Expanding Production Possibility Frontier When the shift of production possibility curve is transformad into the grand utility frontier, then it becomes:

Figure 5 Impact of Social Capital on Improved Pareto Safety and Outward Shift of Social Indiffrence Curve In Figure 5, grand utility frontier is shifted outward with the presence of social capital. Without social capital, no person can be better off without scarifying others (left picture). With new grand utility frontier (right picture), pareto saftey is formed and social indiference curve shifts outward. This give way for social wellbeing improvement in which all people may better off or at least constant in pareto saftey area. Social capital is able to effect the allocation of scarce resources in the socially desirable directions. Cloupkova and Bjonkov (2002) found in their research that the most prominent feature in social networks which enable efficiency is gained from resource sharing. Learning spill-overs contribute to the social capital of one another. Enhanced social capital might lead to improve knowledge or adoption of new methods creating a productivity externality if and only if the transaction cost are relatively small in the productivity gains. The beneficial effects of social capital include impacts of learning spill-overs, increase capacity utilization (e.g. sharing machinery) and improved common poll resource management. Further, they found that social capital will work well on semiformal institution. In strong social capital (bonding) and formal institution, the benefit of social capital is limited. Role of Social Capital in Agriculture and Food Security The structural development of agribusiness has led to the growing market power of input and output industries, increasingly characterized by monopolistic and oligopolistic market 8

structures, which deteriorated the terms of trade for the more competitively structured agriculture. Since in the case of agriculture, the combination of market and hierarchical relations results in the deficit of certain vital business functions, such as product marketing, access to credit, input supply, it follows from here that the new structural levels of organisation should be created that specialise on delivering the lacking functions. Since both centralised and decentralised structures are not effective in delivering these functions, such structural levels can be established on the social capital basis and will serve to harmonise the conflicting interests in the agri-food chain and to enhance the competitive power of agricultural producers (Valentinos, 2003) In the realm of rural and agricultural development, the importance of social capital, perceived as a willingness and ability to work together, has been emphasized in the case of technology options such as watersheds, irrigation management, and integrated pest management strategies. Informal aspects of social structure are shown to play an equally significant role in information and technology exchange and in realization of benefits from technology adoption Based on case studies from the states of Maharashtra and Rajasthan in India, and technological innovations in three major crops pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp., arhar, tur), groundnut (Arachis Hypogaea Linnaeus), and pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Brown, bajra), the paper shows that: collective action and willingness to work together helps overcome, problems of institutional access to information, credit etc, as well as seed supply and provision related problems arising out of government and private sector inefficiencies; and it enables large scale adoption and results in positive impact in terms of higher yields and incomes for farm households, as well as other less tangible and indirect gains in utilizing direct benefits from technology adoption for maximizing welfare gains, farmers and households co-operate and seek to develop facilities which are likely to benefit the community as a whole, especially in investments for the future; this of course is in addition to individual level investments for increasing cropping system production and farm income (Parthasarathy and Chopde, 2001). Research conducted by Cloupkova and Bjonkov (2002) indicates that social capital may improve producer (ie. farmer) gains from trade liberalization and access to credit in central and eastern Europe.

Figure 6 Positive Externalities Induced by Social Capital Presence (Cloupkova and Bjonkov, 2002) Suppose there is exist a small country in which the agricultultural sector initially produce the quantity q0 and producers receive the price at po, where po = pf/(1+t) before liberalization. pf is the price in the foreign market, t is the applied tariff level, and p0 is the price received by farmers on export to foreign market. After liberalization, producer price on internationally traded agricultural comodities increases to p1 = pf where p1 > pf. Area A represents direct producer gain as a consequence of the higher priced. Trade liberalization is also allows the 9

production to increase, and the demand is assumed flat (the exporting country is small). Area B represents the indirect gains due to production ekspansion followed by trade expansion. This can be achieved only whe farmers are operating at or near the capacity limit. This potential gains form investment imply an increased demand for credit. Area C represents additional potential externalities. The total gain is divided among producers, consumers and trade agents. The benefits arising from externalities due to shift of the supply curve generating area C and specifically connected to social capital. These externalities may be obtained from learning spillovers associated with the credit disbursement process, such as social capital augmenting human capital. Enhanced social capital might lead to improved knowledge or adoption of new method creating a productivity externality. Drawing on other forms of capital through social networks may create even more social capital and thus other positive externalities. Regarding the relation between social capital and food security, research conducted around the globe indicates that social capital positively affect food security. Research conducted by Sseguya (2009) indicates that participation in food security groups is affected by socio-demographic, economic and spatial factors. These included age, education level of the household head, a household's possession of a non-agricultural income source, land acreage owned and distance to health facilities. Bridging and linking social capital characterized by household membership in groups, access to information from external institutions, and observance of norms in groups were positively associated with food security. In addition, cognitive social capital, characterized by observance of generalized norms in the village (trust and belief in helpfulness of residents) was positively associated with food security. Human capital (education levels) and physical capital (access to water sources) were also significantly associated with food security. Research conducted by Martin et al (2004) also has similar result. Social capital, a measure of trust, reciprocity and social networks, is positively associated with household food security, independent of household-level socioeconomic factors. Further, Misselhorn (2009) based on his research in South Africa said that some social capital-related failures are linked to food insecurity in the community, including a breakdown in two-parent families, divergences between religious groups, ambiguous leadership characterised by conflict, and changes in cultural norms. Discussion and Recomendation In most cases, the impacts of social capital are not directly measurable, but are channelled through physical capital (e.g. share assets) or human capital (e.g. tacit knowledge, information). However, many findings have shown that the role of social capital cannot be neglected. Managing social capital correctly, is undoubtedly, may improve society well being with less effort and cost. Here, the role social capital is analogous to enzyme in our body which acts as catalyst for biochemical reaction. Moreover, with social capital, social indifferent curve, grand utility frontier and the pareto-safety are improved. Neglecting social capital, especially in rural area or agricultural development may hamper socio-economic improvement for the villagers. Therefore, any policy which will alleviate the role of social capital should be avoided, for instance renting farmers land by state owned company to boost rice production for national food secutity reason may deteriote social capital and social network. Here, collectivistic society is transformed into indvidualistic society with broken and wearing network. Any policy for agricultural policy should consider social capital. However, free rider and exclusion shoud be minimized, which is common in macro and micro (bonding) social capital, respectivelly. Bibliography Akdere, M and Roberts, P B (2008) Economics of Social Capital: Implications for Organizational Performance Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10: 802 - 816 Anonym (2001) Social Capital A Review of The Literature London: Social Analysis and 10

Reporting Division, Office for National Statistics Alonge, A J (2002) Traditional Institutions, Social Capital, and Multi-Institutional Partnerships for Agricultural Development: Implications for a new Extension Paradigm Durban, South Africa: AIAEE, Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference Cloupkova, J and Bjonkov, C (2002) Counting in Social Capital when Easing Easing Agricultural Credit Constraints Journal of Microfinance, vol 4(1) p: 17 - 36 Colletta, N J dan Cullen, M L (2000) The Nexus between Violent Conflict, Social Capital and Social Cohesion: Case Study from Cambodia and Rwanda, Worldbank Fukuyama, F. (1999) Social Capital and Civil Society, IMF Conference on Second Generation Reforms Glaeser, E. L. (2001) The Formation of Social Capital, Canadian Journal of Policy Research Vol 2(1) p 34-40 Kusdarjito, C. (2008) Membangun Masyarakat yang Memiliki Mutual Trust melalui Model Kepemimpinan berbasis Budaya Indonesia The Ary Suta Center Series on Strategic Management, July 2008 Vol 1: 93-130 Martin, K S, Rogers B L, Cook J T and Joseph H M (2004) Social Capital is Associated with Decreased Risk of Hunger Social Science and Medicine, June 58(12) p: 2645 - 54 Misselhorn, A (2009) Is a Focus on Social Capital Useful in Considering Food Security Intervention? Insights from Kwazulu Natal Development Southern Africa, Vol 26(2) p: 189 - 208 Parthasarathy, D and Chopde V K (2001) Building Social Capital: Collective Action, Adoption of Agricultural Innovations, and Poverty Reduction in the Indian Semi-Arid Tropics, New Delhi: Icrisat Prakash, S (2002) Social Capital and the Rural Poor: What Can Civil Actors and Policies Do? p: 49 62 of Unesco (ed) Social Capital and Poverty Reduction, Which Role for the Civil Society Organizations and the State, Paris: Unesco PUTNAM, R (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press Sandefur and Laumann (1998) A Paradigm for Social Capital Rationality and Society, November 10(4 ) p: 481-501 Sseguya, H (2009) Impact of Social Capital on Food Security in Souteast Uganda (PhD Thesis) Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Stiglitz (2000) Formal and Informal Institution in Dasgupta, P and Serageldin, I Social Capital, Multifaceted Perspective Washington DC: World Bank Westendorp, A and Biggs, S (2003) Strengthening Social Capital in Agricultural and Natural Resources Innovation Systems: Community IPM Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) in Nepal, www.share4dev.info/kb/output_view.asp?outputID=323.pdf

11

Valentinov, V (2003) Social Capital, Transition in Agriculture, and Economic Organisation: a Theoretical Perspective (Discussion paper No. 53) Halle, Germany: Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe Woolcock, M (2001) The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economics Outcome Canadian Journal of Policy Research Isuma: Vol 2:1 p Spring 2001 p: 11-17 Woolcock, M (2002) Social Capital in Theory and Practice: Reducing Poverty by Building Partnerships between States, Markets and Civil Society p: 21 48 of Unesco (ed) Social Capital and Poverty Reduction, Which Role for the Civil Society Organizations and The State Paris: Unesco

12